From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lb1-smtp-cloud3.xs4all.net ([194.109.24.22]:59550 "EHLO lb1-smtp-cloud3.xs4all.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752055AbcDVO4I (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Apr 2016 10:56:08 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] media: vb2: Fix regression on poll() for RW mode To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab References: <1461230116-6909-1-git-send-email-ricardo.ribalda@gmail.com> <5719EC8D.2000500@xs4all.nl> <20160422093141.7f9191bc@recife.lan> <571A1AF3.3040507@xs4all.nl> <20160422112136.06afe7c3@recife.lan> <571A35C0.8020900@xs4all.nl> <20160422114853.5bd48836@recife.lan> Cc: Ricardo Ribalda Delgado , Pawel Osciak , Marek Szyprowski , Kyungmin Park , linux-media@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Junghak Sung , stable@vger.kernel.org From: Hans Verkuil Message-ID: <571A3B80.7090402@xs4all.nl> Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 16:56:00 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160422114853.5bd48836@recife.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 04/22/2016 04:48 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > Em Fri, 22 Apr 2016 16:31:28 +0200 > Hans Verkuil escreveu: > >> On 04/22/2016 04:21 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: >>> Em Fri, 22 Apr 2016 14:37:07 +0200 >>> Hans Verkuil escreveu: >>> >>>> On 04/22/2016 02:31 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: >>>>> Em Fri, 22 Apr 2016 11:19:09 +0200 >>>>> Hans Verkuil escreveu: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Ricardo, >>>>>> >>>>>> On 04/21/2016 11:15 AM, Ricardo Ribalda Delgado wrote: >>>>>>> When using a device is read/write mode, vb2 does not handle properly the >>>>>>> first select/poll operation. It allways return POLLERR. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The reason for this is that when this code has been refactored, some of >>>>>>> the operations have changed their order, and now fileio emulator is not >>>>>>> started by poll, due to a previous check. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Reported-by: Dimitrios Katsaros >>>>>>> Cc: Junghak Sung >>>>>>> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org >>>>>>> Fixes: 49d8ab9feaf2 ("media] media: videobuf2: Separate vb2_poll()") >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ricardo Ribalda Delgado >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf2-core.c | 8 ++++++++ >>>>>>> drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf2-v4l2.c | 8 -------- >>>>>>> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf2-core.c b/drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf2-core.c >>>>>>> index 5d016f496e0e..199c65dbe330 100644 >>>>>>> --- a/drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf2-core.c >>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/media/v4l2-core/videobuf2-core.c >>>>>>> @@ -2298,6 +2298,14 @@ unsigned int vb2_core_poll(struct vb2_queue *q, struct file *file, >>>>>>> return POLLERR; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> /* >>>>>>> + * For compatibility with vb1: if QBUF hasn't been called yet, then >>>>>>> + * return POLLERR as well. This only affects capture queues, output >>>>>>> + * queues will always initialize waiting_for_buffers to false. >>>>>>> + */ >>>>>>> + if (q->waiting_for_buffers && (req_events & (POLLIN | POLLRDNORM))) >>>>>>> + return POLLERR; >>>>>> >>>>>> The problem I have with this is that this should be specific to V4L2. The only >>>>>> reason we do this is that we had to stay backwards compatible with vb1. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is the reason this code was placed in videobuf2-v4l2.c. But you are correct >>>>>> that this causes a regression, and I see no other choice but to put it in core.c. >>>>>> >>>>>> That said, I would still only honor this when called from v4l2, so I suggest that >>>>>> a new flag 'check_waiting_for_buffers' is added that is only set in vb2_queue_init >>>>>> in videobuf2-v4l2.c. >>>>>> >>>>>> So the test above becomes: >>>>>> >>>>>> if (q->check_waiting_for_buffers && q->waiting_for_buffers && >>>>>> (req_events & (POLLIN | POLLRDNORM))) >>>>>> >>>>>> It's not ideal, but at least this keeps this v4l2 specific. >>>>> >>>>> I don't like the above approach, for two reasons: >>>>> >>>>> 1) it is not obvious that this is V4L2 specific from the code; >>>> >>>> s/check_waiting_for_buffers/v4l2_needs_to_wait_for_buffers/ >>> >>> Better, but still hell of a hack. Maybe we could add a quirks >>> flag and add a flag like: >>> VB2_FLAG_ENABLE_POLLERR_IF_WAITING_BUFFERS_AND_NO_QBUF >>> (or some better naming, I'm not inspired today...) >>> >>> Of course, such quirk should be properly documented. >> >> How about 'quirk_poll_must_check_waiting_for_buffers'? Something with 'quirk' in the >> name is a good idea. > > works for me, provided that we add the field as a flag. So it would be like: > > #define QUIRK_POLL_MUST_CHECK_WAITING_FOR_BUFFERS 0 > > if (test_bit(q->quirk, QUIRK_POLL_MUST_CHECK_WAITING_FOR_BUFFERS) && > q->waiting_for_buffers && (req_events & (POLLIN | POLLRDNORM))) Why should it be a flag? What is wrong with a bitfield? Just curious what the reasoning is for that. I don't see any obvious advantage of a flag over a bitfield. Regards, Hans